What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The Minister will know from her previous ministerial role that the cost of fuel is the single most important business cost for rural businesses. I am not asking her to write the Budget today, but will she convey to the Chancellor the importance of continuing the fuel duty freeze for rural businesses beyond the end of December?
In Worcestershire, what has happened has thrown everything into disarray. Now that we are asking people to stand as district councillors next May, will the Secretary of State clarify whether that will be for a four-year term?
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement, but I have to confess to being a bit more confused now than I was when I walked into the room. When it comes to Hampshire, is this a pause or a cancellation? When will we know whether this titanic waste of council taxpayers’ money will re-emerge? The Government’s top-down reorganisation plans have cost councils across Hampshire so much time and money, at a point when finances are already stretched to breaking point. Has she calculated the cost? Will local authorities be reimbursed for the time and money already spent? When will we know what is in the plan?
Yesterday afternoon, MPs across the Solent region were scrambling for reliable information with complete radio silence from the Home Office. As a result, we were not in a position to calm fear and tension. We still know very little about this extraordinary mega-dinghy turning up on our shores. This is not just west a little bit from Dover; this is halfway down the south coast. Will criminal gangs launch more small boats in the direction of Hampshire? Will the Minister share that intelligence with coastal MPs? Where was the intelligence on this incident? Can she also answer claims that the police were not properly resourced? More than 140 officers were dragged away from our communities and from communities as far away as London to police and deal with this incident. Can she please assure us that such incidents will be dealt with better in the future and that she will be doing everything to ensure that it does not happen again?
I thank my constituency neighbour, the Minister for Policing and Crime, for advance sight of her statement. I am sure that we all agree that the right to protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, but the right to protest should never be violently exercised or cause serious disruption to other people. I am sure all of us would equally condemn any form of protest where those guidelines are abused, and support the police in ensuring that protest, where it occurs, is lawful and peaceful. However, these events should be a wake-up call for the Government. It is not just the protesters in Dover and Portsmouth who feel so angry about large-scale illegal immigration. Millions and millions of people up and down this country feel angry as well. Since the general election, over 80,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel, all illegally and all unnecessarily, because France is a safe country—nobody is fleeing persecution in France. Almost 20,000 have crossed this year alone, and 625 crossed yesterday, with more coming in the early hours. Every day when the sea is calm, hundreds of illegal immigrants cross the channel. The numbers this year would have been higher, were it not for rough seas in the past few months. The Government should not be complacent at all. This problem is not solved and I do not think the plan is working, if indeed there even is a plan. I was on the beaches of northern France just a few weeks ago, waist deep in water as one such dinghy embarked with about 100 illegal immigrants on it, while 10 members of the French gendarmerie nationale, who we pay for—who the Home Secretary pays for—with £660 million of our money, almost all of it unconditional, stood by and did nothing. They could easily have stopped the boat embarking in knee-deep water. After that happened, I asked one of the gendarmes why they did nothing, and he said they were under orders not to intervene. Almost all the French officers are prohibited from preventing embarkations in the water and they do not prevent the migrants getting to the water’s edge either. As long as that continues, the crossings will continue as well. The Minister mentioned return numbers, but what she did not mention is that the return of 6,000 small-boat migrants in the past two and a bit years amounts to only 8% of illegal immigrants crossing the channel. That is to say, 92% of illegal immigrants crossing get to stay. There is no deterrent whatsoever in that. The people who cross illegally are costing billions and billions of pounds to accommodate in hotels and apartments, and then costing even more once they get asylum and start claiming welfare. The people are angry—not just because of the numbers and the expense, but because of the crime being committed. A few weeks ago, I met Siobhan Whyte, the mother of Rhiannon Whyte, who was brutally murdered by a Sudanese illegal small-boat migrant called Deng Majek. Rhiannon was stabbed 23 times, including in the neck. Numerous rapes have been committed by small-boat illegal immigrants, including the rape of a girl in Nuneaton aged just 12. The Government are using sleight of hand. They are moving illegal immigrants from hotels into apartments, then granting them asylum on an industrial scale. Just this afternoon, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—hardly a bastion of right-wing extremism, I am sure the Minister will agree—said that Home Office asylum decision making meets its own standards in only half of cases. The UNHCR, no less, said that many illegal immigrants being given asylum do not deserve to be granted that status under the Government’s own rules. A whistleblower in The Times today said that only 1% of asylum claims are really genuine. I cannot give all the many examples, in the interests of time, but they cited one example in which apparently hundreds of Pakistani men claimed to be gay, based on a letter from an individual claiming to be the sexual partner of all of them. That is quite clearly fabricated with the assistance of immigration lawyers. When the system is being abused on that scale, it is no wonder that people get angry. This Government repealed most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which prohibited illegal immigrants from ever getting citizenship. If the Minister wants to create a deterrent, I strongly suggest that she reinstitutes that measure. This Government cancelled the Rwanda scheme, which would have seen illegal immigrants getting deported, before it even started. If the Government are serious about fixing this issue and ending public anger, they need to get serious about the measures, leave the European convention on human rights and deport illegal immigrants as soon as they arrive—then people will not be so angry.
Order. After the next speaker, there will be a four-minute time limit, but I will not reduce it further than that.
3. What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department has effective strategies for prioritising housing densification in urban areas.
I just heard the Secretary of State say that there should be a brownfield-first approach, but what is going on in Bromsgrove, and in many other constituencies, is contradictory: an 85% increase in the housing target in a constituency that is 90% green belt. I challenge the Secretary of State to think again and prioritise urban densification, which is fundamental to the redevelopment of towns, cities and urban centres that are in desperate need of renewal. Why does she not just admit that she has got this wrong and change tack?
This process has been a complete shambles from start to finish and has failed to have Worcestershire’s best interests at its heart. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House whether this is actually being paused or whether, in reality, the can is being kicked down the road, under the veil of the process being delayed, rather than the Government admitting embarrassment? If it has been paused, and she is going to revisit the decision, will the evidence base be revisited, and will there be a new consultation with stakeholders, including residents? If so, will the Secretary of State meet me, as the Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove, before she takes a decision? I think she said earlier that the Government had allocated £63 million to support councils across the country in this process. How much of that £63 million has been spent so far?
On a day when Jaguar Land Rover has announced 4,000 job losses, how many more jobs have to be lost before the Government change course?
Thank you very much for chairing the debate, Sir Edward. I thank all hon. Members for their very good contributions and the petitioners for securing this important debate with so many signatures. The practice of misogyny—a hatred of or prejudicial attitude towards women—is one of the most disgusting behaviours in our society. As a member of a party that wants to treat people on the basis of their actions and decisions, I consider crimes committed against someone because of their sex to be clearly reprehensible; the people involved deserve to face the full weight of the law. Female hon. Members across the House will be acutely aware of the abuse and terrible attitudes directed towards women. Almost too many statistics could be used to illustrate how so many people experience abuse and crimes directed at them merely because they are women. Without pre-empting the Minister’s response, I am aware that the Government may point to the changes implemented through the amendment of the Crime and Policing Act that made changes to the Crime and Disorder Act. I noted that the Government’s response to the petition made it clear that they believe that that change responds to many of the concerns addressed, alongside other measures they are taking in their violence against women and girls strategy. In addition, I understand that the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation will feed into considerations of whether further steps are to be taken. Although there are interesting and worthwhile conversations to be had about the legislative elements of this challenge, it is important to discuss an even more fundamental element: what is the best approach to stop these crimes from occurring in the first place? Such an approach must be rooted in achieving the most effective results for women and girls, in using the laws that we have more effectively, and in increasing enforcement. The targets set out by Government on violence against women and girls are clearly essential. In the spirit of the Prime Minister’s call to work cross-party and to illustrate the importance of tackling crimes motivated by misogyny, I refer back to the first oral question asked by the former shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), after the 2024 election. He asked about the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and what needed to be done to increase arrest rates. In response there was some political points-scoring by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper)—I am sure the Minister will refrain from that—but the overall question still stands: what can be done to increase enforcement? One element, inextricably tied to enforcement, that I believe to be paramount is ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of officers. The Minister will know that there has been a fall in officer numbers of just under 2,000 over the period of this Government. Will the Minister provide assurances that that decrease has not adversely impacted the ability of the police to respond to the crimes discussed in this debate, which are clearly motivated by a hatred of women? We must consider the decisions associated with Government policy, especially those made in relation to the early release scheme. Although I will not relitigate debates already held in this House, I hope that the Minister can acknowledge how damaging that decision will be for women who have been victims of crimes such as domestic violence and rape. That view has been reiterated by numerous organisations that work to stop such crimes. In a statement, Women’s Aid said, about funding to aid victims: “it cannot eradicate the impacts, including the increased danger that they will face, and the responsibility for managing this rests with statutory services.” To pre-empt any statement that we have had early release schemes before, I point to comments made by the CEO of Rape Crisis England and Wales, who stated: “We are in unchartered territory with the new early release scheme, and so remain extremely concerned about its impact on survivors and specialist sexual violence services like Rape Crisis Centres.” We know that that issue is tied to this debate because such crimes so often fall upon women. The release of those individuals only puts women further at risk. Will the Minister explain what conversations the Government have had with police forces about taking steps to mitigate the impact of the early release scheme, and to support the victims of crimes whose perpetrators will be back on the streets? The contributions to this debate have rightly recognised the underlying importance of the internet as a tool for misogyny, and the necessity of ensuring that the next generation of young men do not grow up with distorted views. Our party’s efforts to push for social media bans for younger people are precisely about ensuring that when someone grows up, it is their family, their education and our society more broadly that can shape their future, not some of the repugnant content online, which seeks to monetise young people and to present them with ideas that, if embraced, make misogynistic traits more likely. On that issue, early this year the shadow Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), asked the Government whether the police were using to the fullest extent their powers under sections 42 to 49 of part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which set out the existing offence of encouraging or assisting crime, including the criteria for an offence and how they can be utilised to stop those who encourage the raping of women and girls. Although my hon. Friend’s question was focused on the Tate brothers, who the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) referred to in her very good speech today and who are clearly engulfed in a range of other legal matters, I think the question still applies, considering that there has been reporting about websites and forums that encourage sexual assault. Does the Minister see the police using these existing laws to stop crimes that are clearly prompted by a complete disregard for the autonomy of women, because if we are going to tackle these crimes, we must utilise the tools that we already have available to us? Also, although I appreciate that it is not solely the purview of the Minister, I want to ask about the evidence gap and what we can do to reduce it. Some of the more troubling data about young people and misogyny in the last year was released by the Youth Justice Board. However, the specific section on misogynistic attitudes in its report stated that there were evidence gaps in the UK on matters that included: proving a causal pathway from misogynistic attitudes in childhood to sexual violence and abuse, as well as non-sexual violence; on misogynistic attitudes among children under 18 in England and Wales, as most evidence is from young adults and studies conducted in the USA; and evidence on how algorithmic exposure to misogynistic and sexual content translates into offline abuse. Today, Members have rightly talked about the online sphere, which is specifically addressed by the petition. However, that suggests that there is a knowledge gap. How can we deal with the online sphere if we lack some pretty essential evidence about it? What can we do better to understand the links between misogynistic attitudes and criminal behaviour? We must all work to support female survivors of crime, whether that means giving them the answers they deserve through inquiries such as that into grooming gangs or working harder to enforce the law, in order to stop people becoming victims to begin with.
I want to be absolutely clear, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) made an interesting point about the funding that organisations receive through their police and crime commissioner. Can the Minister confirm that, once police and crime commissioners disappear from our framework, the same funding—or more, perhaps —will be available to those organisations? If so, how will they receive that money?
T6. I have received over 70 complaints from tenants in my constituency who are resident in Places for People properties about its failure to maintain its obligation to fix the property and carry out basic maintenance. Are the Government aware of whether this is a more widespread problem, and is there anything they can do to encourage Places for People to fulfil its obligations?
When I led a debate in Westminster Hall last week on the impact of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire, I could not possibly have anticipated that it would have been powerful enough to stop it dead in its tracks. I welcome the pause to tranche 3, but I want to get a bit of clarity for the councillors in my constituency. The plan is going to be reviewed. If it comes back, will we potentially see local elections in May 2028 for a new shadow unitary? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State meet me and Huntingdonshire district council to discuss some of the topics that are still outstanding and the reason why Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was delayed in the first instance?
We are 26 months in, and the Secretary of State has already admitted that the real cost that the Government have not assessed are the costs of the lost programmes, projects and services that have not been delivered in West Sussex and Arun because the bandwidth, headspace and resources have been devoted to LGR. Can she tell me, first, what has been the financial cost—nationally, in West Sussex and in Arun—of this so far failed experiment with LGR? Secondly, how many months can the district councillors elected in 2027 expect to serve?
No small boats arrived on Hayling island or in any other part of my constituency yesterday. Nevertheless, residents are concerned, and agree with me that anyone who enters the UK illegally should be deported within a week and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Minister also agree, and will she and the Home Secretary meet me, and other Members on both sides of the House, to explain the police and Home Office responses, and why Labour has lost control of our borders?
I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on coming first in the private Member’s Bill ballot and on promoting this Bill. In the previous Session, my private Member’s Bill was the first to pass through this place and the other place, so I wish the right hon. Gentleman similar success with his very important Bill. Having taken through a private Member’s Bill, I know full well the hard work that he and his team will be putting into the proposals, and I want to put on record my thanks to them for doing so. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Floor of the House about the importance of a baby’s first 1,000 days of life. We all know of the love, care and attention that new-born babies need to thrive. By the time they reach 1,001 days old, they will already have progressed to having some form of independence in eating and communicating. The devastating fact, however, is that in the same timeframe, the impact of financial and health inequalities will already be visible. The gap between the most affluent and the most deprived areas will already be evident in toddlers’ groups and nurseries across our communities. For Labour Members, tackling these inequalities is a fundamental goal. We wanted to be elected to eradicate this unfairness. I am therefore keen to hear from the Minister how this Bill could further the Government’s ambitious tackling child poverty strategy. I want to speak about the growing number of babies across the UK who are born as the result of a surrogacy arrangement either here in the UK or abroad. We cannot be absolutely sure how many babies have been born through a surrogacy arrangement, but what we do know is that the number of parental orders granted by the courts, in line with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, increased from 132 in 2011 to 450 in 2021. The number of babies being born as the result of surrogacy is far more than the handful of cases that the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 had intended to cover. The growing number of babies being born as the result of surrogacy arrangements poses a serious issue that we as legislators must address. I do not intend to cover all the points today, but I want to cover two areas in particular. The number of UK nationals using commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad is on the rise. The explosion in international surrogacy is estimated to be worth a $200 billion industry by 2032. Too many babies in their first 1,001 days are being left in legal limbo, because the Surrogacy Arrangements Act did not legislate for overseas commercial surrogacy arrangements, and, as far as I am aware, this place has not taken a view or held a debate on this issue. My position is clear. We should follow our EU partners in Spain, France and Germany in banning surrogacy and, at the very least, we should work in this place to prevent the harms caused by international surrogacy. The failure of this House to have debated the increasing use of international surrogacy arrangements has resulted in different rules applying between adoption and surrogacy. For instance, the Children and Adoption Act 2006 places a duty on the Secretary of State to maintain and publish a list of countries where restrictions on inter-country adoption apply, yet a similar process does not exist for surrogacy. In 2021, the then Secretary of State used his power to place Nigeria on the list of restricted countries, therefore preventing all adoptions between the UK and Nigeria. The reasons given for this decision, which is still in place today, include unreliable documentation, corruption and evidence of child trafficking. Those harmful and illegal practices, however, are not isolated to adoption. For example, earlier this year, a Nigerian police force made five arrests exposing child trafficking and an illegal surrogacy syndicate under the guise of an orphanage. There is no law currently preventing a child born in such circumstances from being brought to the UK. This void in legislation creates a vacuum where children’s welfare and children’s rights are left unprotected while fuelling the international surrogacy syndicates that put women and girls in developing countries at further risk. My second point is that the procedures and guidance about surrogacy that are available to midwives, doctors, nurses and health teams on maternity wards are often out of date and very patchy. In some parts of the country, midwives may experience a number of births involving a surrogate; others may see very few or none at all. It is therefore even more important that up-to-date guidance is available with the very best information, so that the care of the mother and child, both pre and post birth, is the very best it can be. Through freedom of information requests to all Scottish NHS boards, I have discovered that only NHS Ayrshire and Arran and NHS Fife have active guidance in place for midwives and clinician teams on the care and treatment of surrogate mothers and babies to ensure that the law is followed and to set out where they can access support. Of the other Scottish NHS boards, five have no policy at all, one has a draft policy, four have a policy on which a review is overdue, and one refers to the Department of Health and Social Care guidance. Midwives across Scotland are being left to their own devices in ensuring that babies born under a surrogacy arrangement receive uninterrupted care and treatment. I encourage the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that maternity wards and midwives across England are not left in the same position.
I absolutely agree that the Scottish Government must take some action on this matter. In conclusion, I would be keen to see if there are areas where I can work with the right hon. Member for New Forest West to look at changing the law to ensure that babies born through a surrogacy arrangement and the women giving birth to them are no longer forgotten.
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech on international surrogacy, as she has done previously on adoption. I commend the efforts of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) to bring in this new law. Does my hon. Friend agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) that the Scottish Government should closely follow what is happening in this House today and consider similar laws on the rights of babies and on surrogacy?
First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on securing first place in the ballot and, more importantly, on choosing to use that valuable opportunity to introduce this Bill. There are many subjects that a Member fortunate enough to come first in the ballot might choose. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen one that is both profoundly important and—too often, I think—absent from our political debate: the health and development of babies, the wellbeing of their parents and carers, and the support available to families during pregnancy and the first two years of a child’s life. That is why I am so pleased to support the Bill. I do so not only as the Member of Parliament for Mansfield but as a father and a grandfather. When I think about the matters before us, I think about my own grandchildren, Samuel, Joseph, Rosa and Martha—and indeed those grandchildren in our family who are yet to be born. I think about the families into which they were born, the love and care that surround them and the extraordinary speed with which I have seen them begin to develop a personality, to form relationships and to make sense of the world. Inevitably, that makes this debate personal, but it should be personal for all of us, because every Member of the House represents thousands of families who want exactly the same thing for their children and grandchildren: for them to be safe, healthy, loved and given the best possible start in life. The wellbeing of babies should therefore not be a party political matter. As many hon. Members have alluded to, babies do not comment on my Facebook posts or attempt to come to my surgery, yet the decisions we take in this House shape the circumstances in which those children begin their lives. That is why the Bill matters so much. The 1,001 days between conception and a child’s second birthday are not simply a preliminary period before the more important business of education begins. It is the period in which the foundations of a child’s physical health, emotional security and ability to form relationships, develop language and develop future capacity to learn are all being laid. A child does not suddenly acquire life chances when they first walk through the school gates; by that point, a great deal has already happened. Of course, we should never suggest that the course of a child’s life has been irreversibly decided before the age of two. Children are resilient, families overcome extraordinary difficulty, and good schools, good public services and strong communities can transform lives. However, we should recognise what the evidence and the daily experience of families tell us. Early relationships, responsive care, good nutrition, physical safety and the emotional wellbeing of parents all matter enormously, and when a family needs help, the earlier that help is available, the more effective it is likely to be. We talk a great deal in this place about prevention—about preventing ill health, family breakdown, or children falling behind at school—but prevention requires us to act before a difficulty becomes a crisis, and to invest political attention in people whose needs are not always visible or vocal. That is the central strength of this Bill. It does not attempt to invent an entirely new structure or prescribe from Westminster how every service in every community should operate; instead, it seeks to place a stronger and more enduring statutory foundation beneath the support that families already need and, in some places, already receive. Supporting families does not mean replacing them—parents are the first and most important people in a child’s life. Our role, and the role of government, is not to take over the ordinary work of raising children; it is to create all of the conditions in which families can fulfil those responsibilities. As such, the best services work alongside families. They respect parents’ knowledge of their own children, offer reliable advice, identify risks, and help parents to develop confidence. That is also why services need to be welcoming and non-stigmatising. If support is associated only with crisis, parents may delay asking for help because they fear judgment. The Government’s Best Start family hubs and healthy babies programme provides an important basis on which to build. The commitment of £500 million between this year and 2029, the expansion of Best Start family hubs across every upper-tier local authority, and the enhanced healthy babies support in areas of high deprivation all demonstrate that the Government understand the importance of this period. All Labour Members should be proud of the legacy of Sure Start. At its best, Sure Start understood that children’s wellbeing could not be separated neatly into health, education, family circumstances and so forth. It brought support into communities and created places where parents could seek assistance without stigma. My own daughter described Sure Start centres in Mansfield as “the best place in the universe”, so we should learn from the best of Sure Start, the family hubs programme, and the experience of Start for Life. Families are more interested in whether doors are open, the staff are present and help is effective than they are in thinking about the organisational model. When I consider this Bill, I naturally think about my own family, but I also think about the generations of children in Mansfield and across the country whose names we do not yet know. If we believe that every child should have the opportunity to flourish, our commitment cannot begin at nursery or primary school; it must begin at the beginning. I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West again, and hope that Members across the House will allow the Bill to proceed without dividing, work constructively on its detail in Committee, and give support for babies and their families—the enduring foundation that they deserve and that this Bill can help to provide. I commend the Bill to the House.
The hon. Member is being incredibly generous with her time. I was delighted to contribute to her debate on infant feeding, and I thank her for her leadership on that. When we talk about the information and advice that is available to people, does she agree that one thing that can make a difference is the right person at the right time? I will not make this too much of a speech—I will include this when I get to speak—but the difference made by a midwife who arrives just at the moment when someone is prepared to give up can sometimes result in someone’s daughter acquiring the middle name of that midwife, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said.
I beg to move, That the House sit in private. Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.163)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) for her emotional contribution, and I hope baby Chloe’s mum feels that her case has been aired here today. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for introducing the Bill. It is a really important one. Infants, parents and carers—it covers it all. He has paid tribute to all those whose work he is building on, such as Dame Andrea Leadsom, Tessa Jowell and my good friend and previous office buddy, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). What does this Bill do? It proposes a legislative framework focused on three linked elements in infant support services: assessment of need, provision of services and reporting. We cannot get anything right until we know what is happening, so assessment is critical. As the right hon. Member for New Forest West said, it is a short Bill, but it is a high-level one. I am sure that in Committee the Bill will be gone through with a fine-toothed comb and that the Minister will have a lot to work on from it. Why 1,001 days? We have already heard clearly the evidence about the 1,001 days from conception to two years old. From my 30 years’ experience as a paediatric physiotherapist, I know just how important that period is. I could see how important the care was that the mum received during pregnancy. I have seen babies born with foetal alcohol syndrome and babies who are six hours old going through heroin withdrawal. We must not see these things again. We must do what we can to stop this, and that is why the Bill is so important. Madam Deputy Speaker, you may be asking why a Welsh MP is talking about a Bill that applies only to England, but my experience in the Welsh services, as well as the English services, showed me just how important the early days are. That is why Sure Start was so important, and in Wales we have Flying Start. We know that if a mum goes to regular antenatal checks and has the scans, things can now be picked up very early. We can actually treat children in the womb. That is fantastic news and can ensure a great start for any baby who has problems that are discovered before birth. Obviously, after birth, the use of health visitors is vital. We have already talked about home visits. It is not enough to have an online visit. Baby P was a clear example of what can go wrong. Professionals can be hoodwinked, and that is not right—we need face-to-face visits. When I was a physiotherapist, home visits told me so much about the family. By just walking through the door I could tell what level of money they had or what it smelled like. I would know what was going on in that family and intuitively how much more help they might need. We have heard clearly today about the history of the erosion of Sure Start. It is important that services are set out in statute, so that they cannot be eroded. The evidence is clear that 1 million neuropathways are set up every second, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South said. We also know from the terrible evidence of children who have been isolated in orphanages with a lack of stimulation and the problems that they had that that ground can never be made up. That is why this Bill is so important. We need a level playing field in order to bring everybody up to a suitable level. I could go on and on, but I will not. I am proud of what has been achieved by Labour Governments in the past, but I am equally proud of what this Bill will do in the future, and I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West for bringing it forward today.
Many Members were unable to contribute to today’s debate but have much to say, so will the Minister meet those Members to discuss further issues that were not raised during the debate?
On the historical point—forgive me; I could not stop myself—the Maternity and Child Welfare Act 1918 probably preceded some of the things the hon. Lady is about to say, as well as some of the measures mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). There is a long history of efforts to introduce child welfare.
My hon. Friend mentioned infrastructure. Does he agree that there is a case for redefining that term to include early years provision when we are looking at new housing developments for families?
The idea of ringfencing and ensuring that we protect this time is the reason why the Bill is so important. Where councils did not ringfence in the past, they kind of lumped together youth services with this period of time. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that having a separate pot and protection for this time is valuable, even if we later have to look again at youth services for people as they get a bit older?
My own experiences as a new parent were as my hon. Friend described: it was this terrifying thing, “How do I keep this bundle of lovely joy alive and get some sleep at the same time?” Universality is so important but, as these services have lost funding, they have become more and more targeted. One of the good things about a universal service is meeting other parents from different backgrounds and children growing up in a community rather than in silos. Does my hon. Friend agree that any way forward has to be a one-stop shop model—a drop-in service, like a stay and play, not something highly targeted and specialised? It should be the sort of thing where parents can drop in, get some support, and meet other parents who are going through the same thing.
To bring us back to the Bill and to take the temperature down—to be fair, nobody on the Government Benches sent it up—the point is that this particular time, the first 1,001 days, has not been protected. I agree that of course we need to take support through to 19, but the challenge when Sure Start was rolled back was that councils found themselves with one pot of funding for the journey from conception to the teenage years, which meant that the youth services that help with later intervention were competing with the early intervention we are talking about today. Protecting this time means that we can invest properly in and hopefully bring down the cost of those youth services later on. I hope the hon. Member can agree on that point.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on the wonderful Bill he has brought forward and on the debate, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her tireless work on this issue. Up and down the country, it is a bittersweet time for parents. We have enjoyed spending the summer with our children, creating lasting memories, but we are also celebrating not having been asked to provide a snack for the last 10 minutes, or worrying if someone has fallen down the stairs, like in my house. In our household, we are celebrating my eldest putting on a blazer for the first time and heading off to high school—[Hon. Members: “Aww!”] Yeah, it’s a bit much. It has been an interesting time, and as we have reached this new milestone in my son’s life, I could not help but reflect, in the context of this debate, on what it was like in those early days of parenthood, because no matter how scary it is to see my son becoming his own person and having his own views on things, nothing compares to that first initial fear when you become a parent, not knowing what to do and where to go, when you are a little bit dazed, terrified and wondering if you will ever sleep again. I think back to the services I leant on: the antenatal classes, the health visitor who came to my home—we have heard how important that is—and the stay and play that I took my son to and met other parents, where we were able to swap notes. We have remained lifelong friends, and they have helped raise my son, creating that sense of community and village around him. That network meant that I had the right diet during my pregnancy, that my son was surrounded by the things that helped him to learn, and that our new family had the support we needed to get the best possible start. We often talk in this place about policy being routed not in ideology but in evidence, focusing on what works and investing in that. Well, we know what works for the early years of a child’s life because the evidence is overwhelming. The first 1,001 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday are among the most important in human development. As the Government describe in their “Best start in life” review, these critical 1,001 days are the “foundations for lifelong emotional and physical wellbeing”, as many have mentioned today. Research shows that during these critical days, a baby’s brain develops at an extraordinary rate—doubling in size during their first year, with around 1 million neuro connections forming every second. These precious days have the potential to shape our health and resilience and who we are later to become. This Bill matters so much because it protects those critical days with legislation. It requires the Government to assess need, listen to parents and carers, ensure that appropriate support services are available, and report transparently to Parliament on the impact of that support. The reality is that too many children growing up are without the services they need in those most critical moments. If those neural pathways are developing every second, then every second counts, doesn’t it? In my constituency of Croydon East, around 30% of children are growing up in poverty. Croydon’s public health data suggests that girls growing up in the most affluent parts of our borough can expect to live around six years longer than the girls growing up in the least affluent parts. For boys, that gap is nine years. In a borough like Croydon, where a child’s postcode can still have a profound impact on their health and life expectancy, we cannot afford to treat early intervention as an optional extra. It is not a luxury; it is the most effective tool we have to break the cycles of disadvantage and create genuine equality of opportunity. That is why I cannot speak on this debate today without acknowledging the impact of Sure Start, which many colleagues have mentioned. Sure Start was the most successful early intervention programme this country has ever seen. Independent research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that access to Sure Start improved educational outcomes for disadvantaged children, with benefits lasting way up to their GCSEs. It found that the positive effects of Sure Start came with significant financial benefits, including reduced costs for Government services at later stages in life and increased tax revenue from higher earnings. In fact, it estimated that at its peak, Sure Start generated over £2 for every £1 of Government spending. Yet despite that evidence, funding for Sure Start fell by more than two thirds between 2010 and 2022, and over 1,000 children’s centres closed across England. I wholeheartedly welcome this Government’s commitment to giving every child the best possible start in life, for their investment in Best Start family hubs and the steps they have taken to eliminate child poverty by lifting the two-child benefit cap. But if history can teach us anything, it is that priorities change, spending changes and even Governments change, and when support at this critical time is scaled back, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. Just think about where we would be if we had kept that investment in those Sure Start centres, if they had not closed—if families, regardless of their shape, size or background, had continued to have the support and investment they needed, how much better off would we be? It is important that we do not make the same mistakes. The Bill means that for the first time, we legally give the first 1,000 days the recognition, protection and visibility that they deserve. We set out that no matter what or who is in charge, we choose to invest in our children. If we are serious about reducing inequality, improving mental and physical health, strengthening families, and giving every child the best possible start, then we must act when it matters the most: at the very beginning. I welcome the Bill and give it my full support. I am so proud to take part in this debate.
Anyone who has been a new mother will understand that for some women breastfeeding is very easy, and for some women it is not. Does the hon. Member agree that research into the difference between an easy breastfeeding experience and a harder one is not particularly good? If all a struggling mother wants to do is feed her baby, because she has been told that she needs to feed her baby and that if she goes below a point on a chart, she is not doing a good job, perhaps we need more investment and research into how we can make it easier for mothers to breastfeed, so that they can make informed and supported choices as they go forward.
It is truly an honour to speak in this important debate. I am happy to follow the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). This is such an important Bill, as we have heard. I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for his work on bringing it forward; I have thoroughly enjoyed working with him on it. I also thank the 1001 Critical Days Foundation, which I have had the privilege of working with over many years, for its unwavering support for the Bill and beyond, and for its tireless commitment to ensuring that every single baby has the best possible start in life. That thanks extends, in particular, to the former Member for South Northamptonshire, Dame Andrea Leadsom. She has been the biggest champion of this issue, whether in this place during her whole time as an MP—I worked with her on it—or from the outside, as now. I also thank the wonderful former Health Minister Will Quince, who is now the chief executive of the 1001 Critical Days Foundation, for his dedication and work on getting the Bill to where it is today. We all know how much work went into these important six clauses, as we heard from the right hon. Gentleman for New Forest West in his opening remarks. Before I go into why the Bill is so important, it would be useful to contextualise how we got here—some of this we have heard in the other excellent speeches. I was extremely proud when the last Labour Government introduced Sure Start to reduce the impact of child poverty and address social exclusion by improving the life chances of children under five, especially those who grow up in disadvantaged areas. I pay enormous tribute, as others have, to the late, great Baroness Tessa Jowell. She would be so proud of the right hon. Gentleman—who is not actually listening to me at this point. She would be—he is still not listening—so proud of him for choosing this issue for his private Member’s Bill and of all of us for being here to support it. When I became shadow children and families Minister back in 2010, she explained the genesis of Sure Start, how important it was and how we got here. She said, “Sharon, you need to be able to smell the babies—the places need to be full of babies.” Metaphorically, this House is, in all our remarks, full of babies today. I am sure that she would be proud of us. I also pay huge tribute to Lord Blunkett, as others have, Baroness Margaret Hodge, who also gave me the benefit of all her wisdom and experience, and our current Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), as well as the former Member for Nottingham North, the amazing and brilliant Graham Allen, who I had the pleasure of working with on early intervention. I still have copies of his excellent reports, written with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and refer to them now; his work goes on in the work that I will continue to do from the Back Benches. I thank him for that. I also thank Naomi Eisenstadt, who has been mentioned. So many played major roles in driving the policy forward after the 1997 election.
The work on teenage pregnancy was a real blueprint, and the 10-year teenage pregnancy strategy fulfilled its ambition of reducing those numbers, following the great work of Graham Allen. I remember taking part in a Westminster Hall debate acknowledging 10 years of that strategy and its success. As for what the numbers are now, as we have been saying, when anything of that kind stops, there is backsliding, I am afraid. That shows that the job is never done. That is why it is so important that we get the Bill through Parliament and on the statute book. While the initial roll-out of Sure Start targeted disadvantaged communities exclusively, the approach soon shifted to focus on the universal provision of children’s centres, as we heard in the excellent speech by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). At Sure Start’s peak, almost 3,500 centres were operating across the country. However, in 2010 came the change in government and Tory austerity, as has been discussed; we all know what happened thereafter. Within months, Sure Start funding was slashed, with cuts of up to two thirds, and the ringfence was removed. Hundreds of centres closed so quickly. I was shadow children and families Minister at the time, and our now Prime Minister was shadow Education Secretary. Together, we fought the battle against those cuts day in, day out. I was keeping a tally of closures, and when it got to over 1,000 closures the coalition Government stopped publishing the numbers, which made it so much harder for us to keep track.
It was; those were dark days. That is why I was so glad and grateful to hear the right hon. Member for New Forest West acknowledge how wrong it was that the coalition Government allowed that to happen. As we know, the former Prime Minister and then Member for Witney’s pre-election promise to protect Sure Start never held true—quite the opposite. Those savage cuts were truly a tragedy for children everywhere. I agree with the then Member for Sheffield Hallam and Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition Government, who said that Sure Start was “one of the best things the last Government” had done. It was a shame he was not able to protect it from cuts, even as Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure he tried; I acknowledge that I am sure the Lib Dems did try.
That is a really good point, which gives us great hope that the Prime Minister will help to rebuild that, and protect what we are discussing, going forward.
I did so in my remarks just before the interventions—I said that I am sure the Lib Dems tried—but we are not here today to rehearse all that, although we are touching on it in a small way. All that is why the Bill is so important, and why it must pass today—to give vital services the statutory protection that they require, so that progress cannot ever be reversed by a future Government through austerity, cuts, neglect or indifference. The decisions we make as parliamentarians shape the support available to babies, parents and carers during the 1,001 critical days from pregnancy to age two. This is one of the most important periods in human development. This window may be relatively short, but its impact is not small; in fact, it is responsible for the fastest development of a baby’s brain when compared with other stages over the course of our whole life. I am not very good at clicking my fingers, but I am attempting to do so—I will try my other hand; that’s a bit better—because a million connections happen a second. That is what George Hosking from the WAVE Trust used to say to me. He would click his fingers and say that a million connections happen a second in a baby’s brain in those first 1,001 critical days. I know from my work with George and the WAVE Trust when I was shadow Children and Families Minister that the period from conception to age two is absolutely the age of opportunity. By age two, 80% of a baby’s brain development has happened. That lays the foundations for attachment, learning, health, wellbeing, stress responses and more. It is therefore essential that the most effective support is provided during this vital time. For babies to thrive, their parents and carers need to be supported. After all, they are directly responsible for the development of their babies during this most critical period of their lives. Their relationship, stress levels, responsive care and more will unequivocally influence the development and growth of their babies. They are therefore the foundation of our society. Evidence shows that parents’ perceptions of their foetuses are associated with the quality of the relationships built after birth. That highlights the key relationship between maternal foetal attachment and later outcomes. Getting this right matters because when we do not, children suffer. Research shows that 10% to 25% of children experience disorganised attachment with their main caregiver, putting them at greater risk of poor social, emotional and educational outcomes. That is why we need an assessment to understand exactly what parents and carers, current and prospective, need from us as legislators to help them thrive and take advantage of this time, so that they can provide the best possible start in life for their babies. But to do that, parents need the support and emotional capacity to do so. Carrying the huge responsibility of ensuring the health and wellbeing of another human being so tiny and so vulnerable is an extremely difficult journey to navigate. However, that weight does not come with any training or preparation. Parents are expected to know just by instinct how to fulfil this role, and that is where we have gone wrong. If we want a healthy and happy society, we need our children to be thriving and therefore our parents and carers to be supported from the very start. That is why I have long advocated for age-appropriate child development education, including on attachment theory and how to be a good parent, to be incorporated into the school curriculum. My hon. Friend the Minister for Early Education was here earlier, so I hope that he listens in to the point I am making now. There need to be lessons in how to form healthy attachments with babies and in the importance of someone speaking to their baby, even while pregnant, and giving them the love and care they need when they are born, consistently and constantly. This is not only an investment in their development; it is vital to ensure well-attached, healthy and happy children who will thrive into adulthood—it really is that important. This is not at all about encouraging young people to become young parents before they are ready. It is about education, in the same way that we accept that age-appropriate sex education is needed so that people are prepared for it if and when that time comes. I want to be clear that this support is just as necessary during pregnancy as it is when the child has arrived because, as we know, no two pregnancies look the same. Many will know that I have spoken before on the Floor of the House about my heartbreaking experience of baby loss, and I know that I am not alone in that. This is yet another reason why the Bill is so important. Having important support and intervention, especially in instances of grief and trauma, will be a lifeline for so many. Many of us who experience baby loss then go on to try to have another baby, sometimes successfully, so being supported through that trauma, ready for when the next baby comes along, is so important for their attachment and support. This Bill will be key in ensuring that support is not just reserved for crisis but is consistent, proactive and accountable. The current non-statutory Government guidance, which sets out delivery expectations for Best Start family hubs and healthy babies services, does not go far enough. We need legislative protection so that history can never repeat itself. It would ensure that that support is actually accountable to Parliament, with an annual mandatory report highlighting the services that have been provided and the outcomes that they have achieved. If the provision of support is there but not accountable to anyone, the quality of that support can be variable, as no one is accountable and keeping track of it. It is therefore essential that the needs of infants, parents and carers, and prospective parents and carers, are actively assessed, and that is precisely what the Bill will do. As a former public health and prevention Minister, I know from first-hand experience that Government interventions on health oftentimes focus on responding afterwards, rather than preventing, and are reactive rather than proactive. I know that the Department is very focused on changing that. If we instead focus on building conditions that allow parents, carers and babies to thrive, we allow children to thrive from the beginning, rather than waiting to intervene when they struggle later down the line. Babies should not be an afterthought. There is clearly both a moral and an economic case for this, and the cost of doing nothing will always outweigh the cost of preventive action. I would therefore encourage anyone listening to this debate to back our babies and support this Bill. Babies should be apolitical. This should never be about party politics or point scoring. This is about ensuring that investment in our babies is protected and is put on a statutory footing, so that it is not something that any future Government can decide to strip away, but rather a grounding principle of our society. Babies do not have a political voice, nor do their needs change depending on which colour the Government may be. They need consistent support and care, as do their parents, as they are reliant upon us to act for them. As I hope I have shown in my remarks today, and as we have heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest West and others, the evidence is clear and robust: supporting the healthy development of babies in their first 1,001 days is fundamental to lifelong physical and mental health and happiness. Surely the success of any Government must include a measure of how well the children in our society fare. Since we know that this key period is the ultimate determinant for that, implementing the Bill is not just an opportunity but a responsibility. That is why we said in our manifesto—I am so proud of this—that we would help raise the healthiest generation of children ever. This Bill is an important step in the journey to achieve that aspiration, which is why I was so proud when I was the Minister to secure Government support for this private Member’s Bill, and it was a pleasure to work with the right hon. Gentleman on it. I do not believe that any Member in this place would disagree with the fundamental principle that investing in our babies and supporting our parents are investments worth making. This therefore should be a uniting issue across the House, and I hope that the Bill receives the absolute and universal support it needs and deserves as it progresses through both Houses. I look forward to serving on the Committee with the right hon. Member for New Forest West, and I look forward to seeing the Bill become the Swayne babies Act very soon.
It is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill today, and I commend the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on introducing it. If he will permit me to say so, he did so with his characteristic flair and passion. While I am in no way able to match his flair, I share his passion for improving the support available to babies, parents and carers, particularly during those first two years of a child’s life. Those 1,001 days are a golden opportunity. If we get the support right, the benefits last a lifetime. If we get it wrong, so do the costs. There are three points I want to make in support of the Bill. First, it sets us on the path to support every child and every parent, whoever they are and wherever they are. Secondly, and most importantly, when this level of support is not there, as is the case now, the vacuum it creates puts babies and their parents at serious risk. Thirdly, by building better support during those first 1,001 days, we are investing in the essential infrastructure needed to make this country a fairer, stronger and more prosperous place. Like many, I approach this Bill from the perspective of being a parent, which is one of the greatest joys that life has given me. I remember the first year of my son’s life and the happiness those precious early moments brought me and my partner Catherine, but I also remember distinctly the less precious moments and the daily battle that every new parent has with their anxieties: “Why are they crying? Why are they not sleeping? Am I doing something wrong?” These questions swirl around our heads when we are sleep-deprived, emotionally drained and totally unsure of ourselves. It is a time when we are at our most vulnerable, when we need help and when, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West said, parents need to have somewhere to turn. From perinatal to neonatal care, that help must be universal, it must be statutory and it must be something that the Government are held to account for delivering. This Bill sets us on the path to doing so. It is universal, in that it requires the Government to assess the needs of all babies, parents and carers; it is statutory, in that it gives a legal footing to the support provided; and it is something on which the Government can be rightly held to account, in that it requires Ministers to report annually on the support they are providing and the difference it is making. Without universal, statutory and accountable support, a vacuum is created, and that vacuum is dangerous, because in the gaps caused by the dismantling of services like Sure Start and health visitors, opportunists who are not fit to care for children and provide advice have thrived. I am talking most prominently here about the infant sleep industry—the wild west, where literally anyone can pose as an expert and give parents advice that puts their child’s life at risk. Sometimes these people call themselves nannies, sometimes maternity nurses and sometimes sleep trainers. They can provide care in the home, or they can share their advice to vast audiences on social media, but in all cases, there is no requirement for them to have any medical training or qualifications. There is no legal accountability for the advice they give and no recognised standard for the support they provide. The reason I believe this is so dangerous is, as many Members are aware, because of what happened in my constituency two years ago, when a four-month-old died after being placed in an unsafe sleeping position on the advice of a maternity nurse who had no medical qualifications. There was no criminal recourse for that. It was an unimaginable tragedy, but one that I fear is bound to repeat itself unless action is taken. To further illustrate this point, in May the BBC used undercover filming to expose two prominent individuals in the infant sleep industry who were openly giving advice to parents on safe sleep that could have resulted in the death of their children. Those figures have sold popular books on raising children and have thousands of followers online. The reason that these cowboys have such reach cannot be separated from the dismantling of Sure Start over the last decade and the fact that the number of health visitors has halved in that time. In the absence of services that used to be provided by the state—we have heard a lot from Members on both sides of the House about the importance of in-person support—vulnerable parents have understandably looked elsewhere for that support. This Bill is an important step towards rebuilding these services and giving them statutory protection both now and in the future. Backing this effort is not just a moral imperative; it is an economic and social one too, because the services that support babies and their parents are essential national infrastructure that is just as important as any other. Investing in babies and young people reaps long-term rewards. In setting solid foundations for lifelong health, brain development and emotional wellbeing, we create a better future for the individual and the society they live in. As the Royal Foundation has said, improved support for infants and the adults around them could add £45 billion to the UK economy each year.
Yes, I agree that we should be thinking about the support provided to babies and parents in that way as an important component of national infrastructure; indeed, it is just as important as any other. The projected reduction in the huge costs associated with poor mental health, reliance on the care system and future criminal behaviour shows how our economy would benefit from increasing the support provided to parents and the adults around them and by creating the conditions that allow parents and carers to stay in work. However, for too long we have failed to grasp the opportunity of investing in babies and parents in those vital early years because it was treated as an afterthought and not a necessity. The Bill will set us on the path to changing that. It is a path where every baby, parent and carer has the help they need to be the best they can be. It is a path where the vacuum in support that exposes us to tragedy is filled by the services the state should always provide. It is a path where that support and those services pay for themselves by making us a stronger, fairer and more prosperous country. That is why I am proud to support the Bill.
Would my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that our new Mayor of Greater Manchester, Bev Craig, has agreed to provide free bus travel for children in sheltered accommodation, which will hopefully go some way to making a difference to those children? I hope that this will be replicated in other areas across the country.
For complete transparency, let me say that I am the national maternity adviser to the Government; I wanted to make that clear before I begin my remarks. I wish to place on the record my sincere gratitude and thanks to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing this Bill to the House. I am genuinely delighted to speak in support of it, because its subject matter goes right to the heart of why I entered public service in the first place. There is one principle that has guided me throughout my working life: where someone is born should not determine their future. The postcode where someone is born, their parents’ income, and whether they are born in an affluent community or a former mining community, should never determine how healthy they are, how well they do at school or the opportunities they will have throughout their life. If we genuinely believe that, then we have to begin at the beginning—not at secondary school or primary school, but during pregnancy, at birth and in those first precious moments and years when so much of a child’s future is being shaped. That is why the Bill matters so much. It asks us to look seriously at the support available to babies and families, and at whether the provision we have actually meets their needs. This debate takes me back to the beginning of my career, in the heyday. Before coming to the House, I spent years working with children, young people and families, first for the YMCA in America, then back in Nottinghamshire, and then developing Sure Start services across Nottinghamshire and Derby. I worked on the frontline, directly with parents and children, and then I moved into management, helping to develop, plan and co-ordinate services for families—all based on the principles of early intervention, support and prevention. I was fortunate to work at a time when there was a real belief that children and families should sit at the centre of public policy. We not only talked about early intervention and prevention; we developed services to deliver it, bringing services together, including things like the common assessment framework. Crucially, we talked to parents, families and communities. I believed in Sure Start then and I believe in the principles behind it every bit as strongly today. Sure Start was never simply a building with a sign on it; it was an idea—a philosophy—not only about how we should treat families, but about how we give every child, no matter their background, the best possible start in life. It said that families should not have to be in crisis before somebody helps them, and that becoming a parent should not mean being handed a list of telephone numbers and then being expected to navigate half a dozen public services on your own. It recognised that a child’s life does not fit neatly into departmental boxes. There was early education and childcare, health visitors, breastfeeding support, parenting programmes, speech and language support, stay and play sessions, and family support and outreach. There was advice about benefits, employment and training. There was support for parents as well as for their children. And sometimes the most important intervention was not a formal programme at all—sometimes it was a cup of tea. In Nottinghamshire, we understand the power of a brew, because what it really means is to stop: for someone to listen, for someone to care and for someone to help. While I am not advocating for tea to necessarily be a national policy or an amendment to the Bill—nor will I ever advocate for how the Prime Minister makes a cuppa—I will always advocate for those working on the frontline having time to care, time to stop and time to listen, whether they are a support worker in a family hub, a health visitor or a midwife. Sometimes Sure Start was about a mum walking into a children’s centre, sitting down beside someone she had begun to trust and quietly saying, “Can I talk to you?” That conversation could be the beginning of getting help—that mattered. Relationships mattered and we worked with parents; I feel incredibly strongly about that. Good family policy cannot simply be designed in Whitehall and done to people. Parents know their children and their communities. They know what works and what is missing. When I worked with parents, we listened to them, we involved them, we asked them what they needed and we learned from them. We understood that the mother who did not attend a group was not necessarily hard to reach—perhaps we were hard to reach. Perhaps there was no bus, or the sessions were at the wrong time. Perhaps she was frightened of being judged. Perhaps she was exhausted.